BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29/04/2009
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN
A.S.No.493 of 1998
and
Cross Objection No.23 of 1999
The Special Tahsildar,
Adi Dravidar Welfare Scheme ... Appellant
Sencottai.
Vs.
1.Asan Mohideen
2.Kasim Labbai ... Respondents
Prayer
This Appeal has been filed under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act,
against the judgment and decree dated 24.06.1997 made in L.A.O.P.No.10 of 1995
on the file of Principal Sub Judge, Tenkasi.
!For Appellant ... Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
Addl. Government Pleader
^For Respondents ... Mr.Ramesh alias Ramiah
:JUDGMENT
The Special Tahsildar (LA), Adi-Dravidar Welfare Scheme, Sencottai, is the
appellant herein.
2.Land in Survey No.242/4A and 6 of an total extent of 4.91 acres in the
village of Pudur, Sencottai Taluk, was acquired under 4(1) notification dated
12.08.1992 for the purpose of providing house sites to the Adi Dravidars and
after complying with the formalities, an award in award No.7/93-94 dated
30.11.1993 was passed by fixing the market value at Rs.197.06/- per Cent. Not
being satisfied with the enhancement, the claimants sought for reference and the
matter was referred in L.A.O.P.No.10 of 1995, on the file the Principal Sub
Court, Tenkasi, and the learned Sub Judge enhanced the market value at Rs.600/-
per Cent. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed by the appellant.
3.The claimant not being satisfied with the enhancement filed Cross
Objection No.23 of 1999 claiming enhancement of Rs.1000/- per Cent as
compensation.
4.The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the enhancement of
compensation awarded by the lower Court is justified or not?
5.Whether the respondents/claimants in this appeal are entitled to further
enhancement as claimed by them?
6.Before the lower Court the first claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and
one Assistant from the Department was examined as R.W.1. and on the side of
claimants, a sale deed dated 08.06.1992 in respect of survey No. 242/4 of an
extent of 10 cents sold for Rs.10,000/- was marked. The Acquisition Officer
considered 38 sale deeds and selected data land which is in survey No.224/4,
222/2 and 222/6 and fixed the market value at Rs.197.06/- per Cent.
7.Admittedly, the acquired land is in Survey No.242/4A and 6 and the data
land was in Survey No.222, which is far away from the acquired land and
therefore, that should not have been taken for fixing the market value. On the
other-hand, the land covered under Ex.A1 is in Survey No.242/4 and the acquired
land is in survey Nos.242/4A and 6. It has been held in the judgments reported
in 2002(10) SCC 570 in the case of Land Acquisition Officer (Revenue Divisional
Officer), Nalgonda (A.P) vs. Morisetty Satyanarayana and others and 2005(12) SCC
59 in the case of Ranvir Singh and another vs. Union of India, the most relevant
piece of evidence would be sale deed pertaining to portions of the acquired
land. Therefore, the value for which the land under Ex.A1 was sold can be safely
taken into consideration for fixing the market value. While fixing the market
value deduction towards development charges can be given as the land in Survey
No.242 covered under Ex.A1 was sold as a house site. In my opinion, 1/4th
deduction can be made from that value towards development charges and if so
calculated the market value can be fixed at Rs.750/- per Cent.
8.Accordingly, I fix the market value at Rs.750/- per Cent and therefore,
I allow the Cross Objection No.23 of 1999 enhancing the compensation of Rs.600/-
to Rs.750/-per Cent and consequently, A.S.No.493 of 1998 challenging the
enhancement is dismissed. In other aspects, the order of the lower Court is
confirmed. There is no order as to costs.
er
To,
The Principal Sub Judge,
Tenkasi.